Opinion

Springfield’s Question 1 Is All About Continuity

Question 1 on the election ballot in Springfield this fall asks voters if they want to lengthen the term of the mayor from two to four years. That’s the official wording, more or less.

But the question could very easily be phrased in other ways. Such as ‘do you want to bring more continuity to the management of the largest community in Western Mass.?’ or ‘do you want to facilitate economic-development efforts in the city?’ or ‘do you want to make it easier to recruit top talent to important positions in city government?’

The answer to all those questions is ‘yes, obviously.’ And that should be how people respond to Question 1 as well.

This ballot initiative, which would take effect beginning with the 2011 regular city election, is essentially a no-brainer, and we urge voters to strongly support it. It is simply hard to find a downside to giving future mayors a four-year term in office. In fact, we hope that other communities across the region that have mayors will look to do the same, and soon.

Why? There are several reasons, starting with the fact that cities like Springfield can’t afford to have their mayors running for office every two years. Such frequency means that corner-office holders spend one year governing the city and the next year running for re-election and raising money. It’s hard to govern and run an election campaign at the same time.

In fact, it would be fair to say that two-year office holders are constantly running for re-election, and this certainly impacts the way they govern. If an individual is always staring at another election, he or she is almost certain to be far less willing to take the kinds of risks that are often necessary to achieve real progress, especially in a city like Springfield, an older industrial city that must in many ways reinvent itself.

As for newly elected mayors, two years is simply not enough time to put together an agenda and even begin the process of carrying it out. Before an individual has had a chance to do much of anything regarding economic development, schools, public safety, and other matters, he or she must go back to the stump and get re-elected.

There are other reasons to support Question 1, including the broad subject of continuity when it comes to how a community is governed. Developers look for it when they consider where and what to build, and it’s hard to achieve continuity when mayors — and the professionals they choose to help manage their communities — are constantly changing.

There is also the simple matter of recruitment. Many top office holders in a city, including the director of economic development and, to a lesser extent, the school superintendent, serve at the whim of the mayor. Would talented individuals want to put themselves in the position of taking a job they might be able to keep for only two years? Probably not.

Recognizing all of this, many cities in the Bay State have lengthened the mayor’s term in office from two to four years. That list includes Boston, Lawrence, Lynn, Newton, Malden, Melrose, and others, and Springfield should join it, as soon as possible.

This ballot question isn’t about the current mayor, or who might be mayor in January 2012. Instead, it’s about all future mayors and giving them more of a chance to govern the city effectively. It’s about continuity and stability and time to get things done and done the right way.

Question 1 makes good sense for Springfield, and voters should give it their support.